Council Called to Special Closed Meeting

Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:59 AM

Prince George, B.C. –A special closed meeting of Prince George City Council will get underway in about a half hour from now.

The purpose of the meeting is not specific, but under the municipal charter, a meeting can be closed to the public if it is to discuss items pertaining to:

-the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality, pursuant to subsection 90(1) (e) of the Community Charter; and

-information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freed of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to subsection 90(1) (j) of the Community Charter.

There is speculation the meeting is to discuss the property at 255 Quebec Street. The owner of the property has filed a request for a court injunction that would prevent the city from taking any remedial action to demolish the burned out building. At the most recent meeting of Council, it was revealed the city would file a response to that injunction as soon as possible and would be seeking all legal costs from the property owner should the court dismiss his injunction request.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: EatsBushesShoots&Leaves on July 30 2009 12:45 PM

I would love to see Millns finally get the reaming he so richly deserves.

Posted by: kitkat on July 30 2009 1:20 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: gus on July 30 2009 2:28 PM

So what is the reason for the vendetta against the Millns? Never heard of them till the Quebec Street building fiasco.

Posted by: BCRacer on July 30 2009 2:39 PM

I am wondering if the city has someone who wants the property...?

Posted by: EatsBushesShoots&Leaves on July 30 2009 2:51 PM

If you don't know the guy, Gus, it shouldn't concern you. It isn't a topic for discussion on the internetz.

Posted by: gus on July 30 2009 4:21 PM

Then why do you raise it?

Just to let you know, I would love to see the Schmidders get the reaming they so richly deserve. But, don't ask me why since it is not a topic for discussion on the internetz.

Posted by: EatsBushesShoots&Leaves on July 30 2009 4:25 PM

I was commenting on the speculation. If I was opening up a discussion I would have added some detail. Sorry to upset you. nuf said.

Posted by: gus on July 30 2009 5:31 PM

I think you need a reaming too EBSL ... nuf said ... :-)

Posted by: Chester on July 30 2009 7:52 PM

It's time to deal with the eye sore. Two years is long enough. Both parties have had enough time to get things cleaned up, one way or another. Time to move on. Sort the legalities out later, for now, deal with the problem the same way as the Columbus.

Posted by: Truth on July 30 2009 10:09 PM

Injunctions, mandamus and certiorari applications against governments always fail in BC courts. Governments appoint judges; judges know who pays their salary.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 30 2009 10:54 PM

Maybe it was a meeting to discuss how Mayor Dan's "dream buildings" are "unsustainable".

Posted by: supertech on July 30 2009 11:30 PM

Sure hope so!

Posted by: Loki on July 31 2009 8:30 AM

maybe it was about a bylaw to prevent fairies from riding unicorns.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 31 2009 12:17 PM

That would be discrimination.